SoA: This is why I hate New Year's as well. You won't catch me outside anywhere close to midnight. Too many stupid people doing stupid things - shooting guns into the air and drunk driving are just two of them.

Actually Crazy Steve, responsible gun owners KNOW that a gun is a weapon and would never fire them randomly in the air.

Apparantly, some people in Maryland don't believe in the theory of gravity.

We in the NRA have been demanding that people be allowed to shoot off our automatics in crowded places to show that we can control a run-away government for decades. I personally think that we should be allowed to carry grenades on the subways. Just think how it would reduce gang rapes and stuff like that if we could roll out a fist-full of metal between their feet every once in a while!

The problem is there are too many legal gun owners who are careless with their guns. The NRA will reply by saying that we should address this by installing bulletproof barricades around every home.

no responsible gun owner would even think about doing a dumb, crazy,luny-toon thing such as this.

responsible gun owners KNOW that a gun is a weapon and would never fire them randomly in the air

So how does the NRA propose to keep guns out of the hands of irresponsible gun owners? Let me guess: they'll just yammer about how guns don't act of their own volition, imply that the Gubmint is after their guns, then put those tired BS arguments away until the next time a child is shot.

And the anti-gun yahoos will reply by saying we should address this by taking all the guns away from responsible gun owners. I guess if the guilty party had run over a child while drinking and driving, we should outlaw alcohol and take everyone's automobile away.

No matter what, you can't keep guns, cars, alcohol, meth, fireworks, etc. away from the idiots.

And how does the anti-gun lobby propose to keep guns out of the hands of irresponsible gun owners? Let me guess: we'll outlaw them and the criminals will gladly turn them in. We'll make everyone register them, then post the info online so the crooks know where it's safe to break in. After a while, all those tired BS arguments will go away as well.

Jean: I would like to see your source for that claim about carelessness. The individual in question may very well have obtained his gun legally, but we don't know that. Even if he (or she) did, and I'll grant that as a likelihood for the sake of argument, there are restrictions on when and where guns may or (more accurately) may not be fired. Check the local ordinance in the Maryland town where this occurred, and I'm sure discharging a firearm in city limits in such a fashion is outlawed. Whoever did this is beyond stupid and probably also beyond amoral if he (she) doesn't have enough of a pair to own up to it. No law can fix that. BTW, I'm a lifetime NRA member and never has the NRA condoned, sanctioned, promoted, or defended such a stupid act. They are the strongest public promoters and providers of gun safety in the US and probably the world.

One thing guaranteed by easy access to firearms is that more people who should not have guns will have them.

We are always hearing about what responsible gun owners would or wouldn't do. Apparently, there must be many, many irresponsible gun owners (and probably responsible gun owners who, under the influence of intoxicants, lose that needed trait - albeit briefly). I live in an elk-hunting area; the many New Year's "shots" I heard weren't from "responsible gun owners" filling their elk tags. Some organizations of like-minded enthusiasts try to proactively 'police' themselves in the interest of all, to ensure their continued general acceptance...

I don't think discharging a firearm is a felony, but maybe PA. has a state law, does anybody know? The reason I'm asking is that because if anyone dies from actions while you are committing a felony, you can be charged with First Degree Murder even if it was an accidental death. Unfortunately possessing an illegal firearm is only a misdemeanor in Pennsylvania, so if it's not registered that won't help pursue a harsher sentence. The shooter may be an idiot but he probably wasn't trying to kill the girl, give him 80 hours a week of community service for 50 years.

riverboy, involuntary manslaughter, which is what this is, usually carries prison time.

This is one sad story. But you can't judge all gun owners by this. Just like you can't judge them for some assHol3 shooting kids. But they should have had more brains. The sorry thing is that the'll probably never find the one who did it.

How do you determine who a responsible gun owner is before they buy a gun? How do you prevent guns from getting in the hands of irresponsible owners?

How many people have to needlessly die before we're willing to take action against the stupidity that kills them? How many CHILDREN have to be shot by legally purchased guns before we're willing to take action? How many people in the NRA would be this unwilling to change if it were their children getting shot?

But it happened in MD, one of the more liberal and less gun-friendly states in the union. A conviction of involuntary manslaughter would bring about one year sentence. If they can even find the person responsible.

This just breaks my heart. I keep me and my kids in the house during the new years. They should give the person 1st degree murder. Everyone with a brain knows that shooting guns in the air is dangerous, just like drunk drivers know that what they are doing is dangerous.

Misscreant, I'm aware of that. I was asking if either of the violations I mentioned were a felony in Pennsylvania, because then involuntary manslaughter is out the door.

If she'd had her own gun she would have been able to defend herself.

Oh wait, I was channeling LePew.

Sorry riverboy, I misunderstood your question.

Here's a thought for all of you 2nd Amendment haters: how about we change the mentality of this country from one of parasites begging the government to give them everything and make every decision for them, to one of personal responsibility and accountability.

I own multiple guns, including an M-15 (civilian version of the M16), but I'm not the guy you need to worry about walking into your local theater or elementary school. The morons who perpetuate these atrocities are nothing more than a product of a society that no longer respects family, has blurred the line between right and wrong, doesn't hold its parents responsibility for raising their children properly, has created a culture of personal gain with the least amount of effort possible, refuses to demand that its citizens exercise personal responsibility for their actions, and places little to no value on human life. (Notice I didn't say a word about God, which is completely irrelevant to any of this.)

The end result is idiots walking around shooting innocent people because they have nothing better to do, and no one to provide them any guidance (read parents).

There are approximately three guns for every man, woman and child in this country so that ship has already sailed. However, as a society we can shelve our own personal interests and stand-up as one to demand that everyone be accountable for what it is they're responsible for. If we did a better job of that we'd have less and less of these atrocities.

As a parting shot, was everyone aware that the jerk-off who shot those people in the theater in Aurora intentionally chose the only theater in town that had signs posted forbidding concealed carry within the theater. He by passed the one closest to his house, as well as the largest one in town, and chose this one because he knew no one would be shooting back. Still think gun control makes sense?

Carryingconcealed, I pretty much agree with you. But I think the ship has also sailed on the personal responsibility front. You guys (collectively, that is) just voted for more of the same.

I hear you, Ian. I didn't (would never) vote for that knucklehead in office, but you're right. More of the same...

riverboy21

Uhmmm... the laws of Pennsylvania are irrelevant to this situation. The girl was FROM Manheim Township in Lancaster County Pennsylvania. The incident OCCURED in Elkton MARYLAND.

And Maryland has some very restrictive firearms laws. I can assure you that if the firearm was in fact legally owned (which knowing the area, I highly doubt) it was illegal to fire it into the air in "celebration".

I doubt if they find the responsible party, but in the off chance they do, I sincerely hope that every violation is charged and if and when convicted in court, EVERY guilty verdict receives the harshest penalty allowed by law and all sentences are served CONSECUTIVELY and not concurrently.

My very sincere condolences to the family and friends of Aaliayah.

Carryingconcealed - How do you propose we make everyone responsible? Take away welfare and you're going to force more children into deeper poverty that will cause more violence. Take away children from poor families? Foster care ain't that great at preventing children from poverty, abuse, and growing into violence either. Sterilization and forced abortions? Then you're taking away responsibility, as well as people's reproductive rights.

I'm not saying that holding people accountable is a bad thing because it's not. It's just that the things most people who like to shout about it also propose courses of action that could easily be disastrous (eg no abortions, no welfare, no birth control, no education, etc) and until someone finds a way to make it happen, to force what is ultimately going to have to be cultural change rather than governmental (since taking away things, social services, guns, etc. is bad), it's just a idealized dream rather than a potential reality.

For one thing, if he was someplace close enough to people that he might actually hurt someone he is not supposed to discharge his firearm. Most gun owners with two brain cells knows how dangerous firing at random is, especially on a night where people are out and about. I am still stuck trying to figure out what a lot of you guys think is going to be accomplished by getting rid of guns. I mean there are tons of responsible gun owners, but you would have them give up there rights because of a few kooks and idiots. Also, I know this has been mentioned, but people need to actually have consequences when things happen. This whole idea in America that you can do practically whatever you want and the government will have your back is ludicrous. I think it is time to stop blaming guns and actually realize that the problem might be the individual.

@riverboy. I can think of a dozen charges they can hit whom ever did it with. Evevn terrorim. And if hitting your dog is a felony,so is this.

Thanks for the info XDm9mm

That's terrorism. Sorry for the error.

mixedpie

i agree with carryconcealed.

some answers to your question of where to start

birth control would be a start.

drug tests and mandatory birth control before welfare would be another.

making jail jail again would be another.

enforcing existing laws would be another.

Major gun retailers or even the NRA could have a public relations coup if they just offered free blanks to fire on the 4th of July and New Years.

Ricky-

I agree, making birth control more widely available and affordable would be a fantastic way to start. Along with sex education programs that emphasize abstinence, but don't stray from teaching the reality of all birth control methods (since abstinence is ideal in several senses of the word).

Drug tests and birth control for welfare are also good ideas, as long as birth control is made affordable or free (namely, insurance has to cover it, and places like Planned Parenthood get funded). The only issue I can see with this is how it would be enforced since no birth control is 100% effective besides abstinence. Then what do you do if someone fails either, and how do you prevent yourself from punishing the children or sending them into a situation that's just as likely to make them grow up "bad eggs"?

I think the idea of jail is good, but there have been experiments that show "cushy" jails actually tend to work better. Norway has done some work on it and it's proved quite effective.

Definitely have to agree with you on enforcing the laws...

You want free pot, Texas Chainsaw starts tomorrow, and some Schwarzenegger Shootemup starts next week - and you social engineers need to pound gun owners for your freak relatives.

Responsible gun owners don't shoot their firearms up into the air to celebrate.

Responsible gun owners don't shoot in the air. If they do - they are not responsible gun owners.

Duh!!

I guess gang bangers were absent the day gravity was taught in 4th grade.

I highly doubt these idiots were gang bangers. More likely rednecks who didn't make it to the 4th grade.

Actually Crazy Steve, responsible gun owners KNOW that a gun is a weapon and would never fire them randomly in the air.

Unless they've had one too many. You know, kinda like how people get behind the wheel and forget where the center line is after a good party.

So, what would be so wrong with requiring people who want to own a weapon (gun - sorry, ex-military, a gun is something entirely different to me) with attending mandatory gun safety training to get a license and to keep it. I had to go to training to be allowed on a range in basic and I had to attend various trainings all the time to continue my qualifications. That's responsible. Why are "responsible gun owners" against reasonable safeguards like mandatory training?!? Why are "reasonable gun owners" against reasonable actions that would save lives?

Riverboy. Either you did not READ the article or you have a difficult time comprehending what you Read. This Happened in Maryland, NOT Pennsylvania.

All you people bashing gun ownership because of the wackos using guns to commit atrocities. Why are you not screaming about smoking? The statistics are out there. Smoking kills hundreds of thousands a year, compared to tens of thousand from firearms. Yes, something needs to be done about mentally unstable people obtaining weapons. However, you have a much greater killer out there, guaranteed to be used by some of the anti-gun population. What hypocrites!

"In the United States, smoking is responsible for about one in five deaths annually (i.e., about 443,000 deaths per year, and an estimated 49,000 of these smoking-related deaths are the result of secondhand smoke exposure)." -CDC

"There are over 30,000 gun deaths in America each year, nearly 12,000 of which are homicides."-mayorsagainstilleg alguns.org

So, 12k people are murdered by a gun, and 49k from second hand smoke! Who are the murderers? Who are the ones that should be scrutinized more closely? What should we be worried about first? Let fix the more serious problem first.

Rob Scan

And the anti-gun yahoos will reply by saying we should address this by taking all the guns away from responsible gun owners. I guess if the guilty party had run over a child while drinking and driving, we should outlaw alcohol and take everyone's automobile away.

A car's primary purpose is for transportation and alcohol's primary purpose is to get intoxicated.

Neither are manufactured with the intention of killing something or someone.

Another law abiding responsible gun owner caused the death of a young girl, and of course now is in hiding, cowering from his law unabiding activity. Stupid acts with guns will cause you to go from a law abiding citizen to a violent criminal in just one squeeze of the trigger.

Gun owners, unlike smokers, kill others - smokers kill themselves. However if we had as many people give up guns as smoking over the last 15 years and as many gun manufacturers pay what the tobacco companies paid in fines, health care cost and penalties I can't help think we as a nation would be better off.

I can rest easy now - NBCSnooze has injected their daily anti-gun agenda article.

There's a huge flaw with your logic. Cars' sole purpose are for transportation and alcohol's sole purpose is to get intoxicated. Neither are manufactured to kill.

Wanker - It doesn't matter what the sole purpose is; what matters is what the resulting use is. Cars, alcohol, baseball bats and steak knives can and are used to deadly ends. The intended purpose can be far different than the actual use. I have a bathtub that was intended to use to get clean but Drew Peterson uses bathtubs to kill ex-wives.

Dick, you are WRONG! Second hand smoke, which means, you have to inhale smoke even though you don't smoke. This secondhand smoke kills more people than guns, period! Go look it up. And there is no real purpose for smoking, except personal satisfaction, which makes the 400,000+ deaths meaningless. Anyone publicly smoking should be prosecuted for assault. I can not breath smoke as I have a medical condition. So, one of the selfish smokers could potentially kill me. Should they not be prosecuted?

Also, if the person that owned the gun (and nothing here states the person was law biding), and by the action of shooting it in the air, they clearly are neither law biding, nor responsible. This person should be found and sent to prison, or die in the same manner as he/she cause the girls death.

That's what fireworks is for, however I suspect there are stronger regulations about their use than of guns. This tragedy is an excellent example of why each ballistic projectile should carry a micro-serial number on its base. Something needs to be regulated in this country to insure proper usage and 2nd amendment concerns. That now breaks down into three categories, a better definition of assault weapons and their regulation, magazine capacity and ammunition tracing. As far as the latter is concerned, heavy purchases of ammunition could then be flagged, and seeing as how we are all against terrorism, potential attacks nipped in the bud. Surely, the NRA would be in favor of that.

SAM Adams; rednecks living in a Penn. ghetto, do not think so !

This happened in Maryland to a girl from Pennsylvania. It really doesn't matter where it happened this time, because people in every state keep making this same ignorant mistake every year. Different people like to use the argument about cars being dangerous as well as alcohol and second hand smoke; there are laws trying to limit the damage from them, but not firearms. We need to regulate gun ownership the same as driving... by requiring gun safety classes and/or testing PRIOR to purchasing a firearm, along with background checks.

Too many people die from gun carelessness and/or ignorance, like this young girl and the little boy who was shot by his dad as they were getting into their vehicle after purchasing the firearm.

Carryingconcealed

I have never owned a gun and never will. Therefore,

• my household will always be safer than yours
• no gun that I ever purchased will end up in the hands of someone who should not own a gun
• my risk of shooting another person is zero

You think there should be NO restrictions whatsoever on guns?

Well I think any person who has a simple single-engine private pilot's license should be qualified to fly any aircraft they want, as long as they can afford it - from a Piper Cub to a Boeing 747 or even an FA-18 Hornet.

Imagine the chaos if that same logic were applied.

But how much safer our country would be if as much time and effort were put into categorizing arms and requiring licensing for each subsequent scale of arms; a 1st ticket for handguns, shotguns and rifles for instance; and classroom instruction, in-field practice and certification testing for each additional category upward. We also do the same thing for motor vehicles: additional testing and certification required to drive larger vehicles or vehicles that carry hazardous materials.

How does gun safety and smart restriction step on anyone's rights when compared to safety requirements in operation of other potentially dangerous endeavors like airplanes and motor vehicles? The Supreme Court has already upheld the government's right to impose restrictions... so what the hell are we waiting for?

Don:

1. you can't prove that you'll be safer unless you're in a high risk demographic

2. if properly stored, that wouldn't happen

3. true, but:

4. you're defenseless.

Put a sign in your front window that says THIS IS A GUN FREE HOME and see what happens.

You won't like it.

pete

Gun advocates are always justifying owning guns, especially hand guns and assault weapons, on the basis of the very rare occurrence of an armed home invasion in which women are raped and inhabitants of the home are killed. Homeowners who are victims of this very, very, very rare type of crime are more likely to be killed than I am because the invaders will shoot an armed person before they will shoot one who is unarmed. Keep in mind that one who invades your home with thoughts of murder and rape has his weapon ready when he kicks in your door. if you have a gun ready for this kind of occurrence your home is unsafe at all times when it is not actually being invaded.

I am "defenseless" but if you have guns in your home I am much safer than you are.

Sorry, Don, but your post is nothing but leftist Kool Aid drivel.

Because I own and am trained in the use of a variety of firearms (former Marine), am extremely accurate with all of them, wouldn't hesitate for one second to put someone down who entered my house uninvited, and have them all locked up in a biometric safe that only I and my wife can access, it is actually MY house that is infinitely safer than yours.

And I concede it is true that no gun of yours will ever end up in the hands of someone else who may use it in the commission of a crime, simply because you have chosen to not own a firearm, but I can promise you - and listen to this part very carefully - I promise you that if/when you wake up one night because some drug-crazed freak has broken into your home and is now making his way to your bedroom, you're going to rue that decision, and probably die right along with the rest of your family because of it.

The difference between you and I is that I don't ignore the reality of the world I live in . . . you do.

Oh, and please enlighten us on where you found this statistic: "...invaders will shoot an armed person before they will shoot one who is unarmed." That's complete and utter BS but I suppose it suits the argument you're trying to make.

Carry

I am not nearly so anxious to kill another human being. Maybe a good lock on your house would negate the necessity to "put someone down."

You gun freaks have exaggerated the risk of a "drug crazed freak" breaking into your house to the point that you passed ridiculous long ago. Such incidents are rare but, unfortunately, we more often read about family members who have been killed because they have been mistaken for an intruder.

I am not the slightest bit worried about the fantasy home invasions that the NRA likes to use as justification for home arsenals. Armed home invasion is a near-myth and I feel very safe without a firearm in my home. I'd say that I think you are living in a dream land, but it seems more like a nightmare to me. Keep sweating with your finger on the trigger. I would hate to be as fearful as you.

Carry -

What do you bet that Don would be the first to cower under his table and cry out for the police?

Perhaps the first to run from trouble rather than stand and face it?

Good thing there are good hard men in the world putting their lives on the line so that he can hide under his bed waiting for the police to arrive in 30 minutes.

Actually, Pete, calling the police is the right thing to do and getting under the table might not be a bad idea either. Running from trouble rather than having a shootout ...... another fine idea. And the last thing I need is some John Wayne wannabe waving his gun around my house.

You guys that think that having a gun and being willing to use it are dangerous to yourselves and others. Please stay away from me. I don't need you. Trained police officers are the people I will count on, not someone like you.

Am I the only one who shudders when I read angry, judgmental posts by those who profess to owning guns -who say they would never use them "irresponsibly" As individuals, responsibility seems to be observed as a personal, perceived, sliding-scale judgment.

You are not alone, Carlito. I have ready many Newsvine comments from gun owners who say they will "blow away" anyone who comes on their property without permission.

Anyone who will use lethal force for any reason other than other human lives actually being at risk is not responsible enough to own a firearm. Anyone who shoots an unarmed person should be convicted of murder. If you use a gun you have the responsibility to use it correctly or pay serious consequences.

I'm not fearful, don, nor do I sleep with a gun near my bed, it's in a safe, but I'll bet I can get to it before you can get to my bedroom.

Regarding your ridiculous assertion that, "Armed home invasion is a near-myth," please go to the NRA's website and subscribe to the NRA Armed Citizen newsletter. You'll get an email every month that details the numerous incidences where citizens have to use firearms to protect their homes and protect their businesses. It happens every day in this country, but worthless newsrags like MSNBCSnooze, and liberal Kool-Aid drinkers like yourself don't want to acknowledge it since it doesn't fit with your biased agenda.

And I'll state once again that if the day comes that some idiot breaks in to your unprotected home with ill-intent on their mind, your last thought before you die right along with the rest of your family, will be that you wish you hadn't been such a little pansy and actually manned-up to your responsibilities and protected your family like you should have.

Pete: There's no doubt in my mind that don, like many liberals, is deathly afraid of firearms, and whose only strategy when it comes to self-defense is to wrap themselves up in their Pollyanish shawl of naivete, and pray to whatever higher being they believe in that no one ever puts them in a position where they have to actually be a man and protect their family and their home.

Carrying

The NRA is the source of the "near myth" of home invasions. They include incidents such as a kid stealing another kid's bike out of the garage as a home invasion. You have been frightened by made-up statistics by the NRA and now you feel like a real man because you are packing heat and are willing to use it. It's all a joke ..... the chances that you will kill an innocent person, perhaps a member of your own family, are greater than the the chances that you will successfully protect your home from an "invader."

I am not "afraid" of firearms. I have no use for firearms.

Think about this: almost all firearms in this country are initially purchased legally. Somehow, huge numbers of those guns end up in the hands of people who should not have guns ..... criminals, mentally ill, drunks, druggies, people with anger management problems, etc., etc. I blame the people who make gun laws and the people who buy those guns and don't take proper responsibility for them.

Obviously having guns and talking tough about being a John Wayne hero make you feel like a man. I think you are fooling yourself. You sure as hell don't fool me.

This country has more gun deaths than any other developed country in the world thanks to people like you. If you didn't have guns lots of dangerous people would not have guns. You make it easy for any moron, any criminal, any goofball to have a gun. Congratulations.

don , i don't agree w/ you on any & all levels of your argument about guns but here in the usa you have a right to your beliefs ... you even have the right to share them w/ everyone whether we want to here it or not .... i will even go as far as to say i will actually back you 100% on these rights .... now that being said why are you & your kind so darn quick to suppress my rights when some nut job does something illegal ???? i personally feel that everyone should get together on finding ways to stop the insanity that is taking over this country WITHOUT automatically giving up our rights ... if you can't come up w/ a solution that doesn't infringe on our rights then stfu ... those of you reading this please respond w/ your thoughts to my post ... i unlike don keep an open mind & truly want to figure out how to keep these things from happening again

johnny

The problem is that too many guns are in the hands of people who should not have guns. Almost all guns are purchased legally.

Here's what I think:

• Some people who should not be able to buy guns can do so legally ..... we should do something about that

and

• People who should not have guns buy guns from people who bought them legally ..... we should do something about that

You accuse me of not being open-minded. Still, you accuse me of trying to take away your guns when I said no such thing. Who is it that has a closed mind? And what do you mean by "you and your kind". Since I am not closed-mined enough to consider all gun owners the same, why are you so closed-minded that you consider that all who favor controlling guns rights the same?

Don, please stop trying to make yourself better about your position on guns by attempting to emasculate anyone who believes in the right to bear arms. My dick is big enough without needing a gun to make myself feel more manly, but since I doubt I could put a criminal down with it, I'll go ahead and continue to carry concealed when I'm out, and keep a gun locked up but close to me when I'm in my home. It's my right, so why shouldn't I exercise it?

And by the way, I find it interesting that you jump on Johnny for supposedly grouping you in with others, but yet you have no problem lobbing shells like this one over the bow: "This country has more gun deaths than any other developed country in the world thanks to people like you."

What exactly do you mean by people like you? I've never killed anyone, I've never sold a gun to another person illegally, I've never had a firearm stolen, I've never had any firearm-related incidents in my home, so please explain to me why people like me cause all of these gun deaths?

Carryingconcealed

Because I own and am trained in the use of a variety of firearms (former Marine), am extremely accurate with all of them, wouldn't hesitate for one second to put someone down who entered my house uninvited, and have them all locked up in a biometric safe that only I and my wife can access, it is actually MY house that is infinitely safer than yours.

So why not require people to have the kind of training you gained to allow you the right to bear such arms? That's reasonable, and I think you should retain such a right: you earned it. That's all this country is asking of its citizens; so that the Jared Laughner's of the world don't have access to the same kind of weapons a well-trained Marine has. Why is that such a difficult concept to grasp?

RyanDallasTexas, sorry but far more people are killed bu drunk drivers than stupid gun owners. That said Both are frigging morons.

More people own cars than guns.

@LeftisSoRight You know, I've said this dozens of times in the recent blitz of NRA bull crap. A GUN IS NOT A CAR. Get it? The comparison is assinine and totally devoid of logic but the gun groupies will trot out anything to protect their toys. Current gun laws make guns available to totally stupid people as well as "responsible gun owners" (boy is that an oxymoron). Easily available guns will kill us all.

mountainlady,

Thirty+years ago Kennesaw, GA(Google - Gun Town USA), enacted a town ordnance requiring every household to own and maintain a gun. There are restrictions; for mental conditions, criminal background, physical disabilities, etc...

There have been only a hand-full of gun related deaths during the last 30+years, within their town limits. Several happened to occur in a 'GUN FREE' school zone, where State & Federal Laws over-rode the Town ordnance...

The immediate effect of this ordnance, was their decreasing rates of crimes, now well below the US averages. This town within metropolitan Atlanta, GA has enjoyed an INCREASING population 600%(now over 30+k) and has been voted one of the "10 best towns for families".^[3] in the USA, by Family Circle magazine 2007...

Now can YOU show where restricting LEGAL gun ownership has resulted in DECREASING crime rates and/or gun violence???

Japan where guns are almost impossible to obtain by common citizens, they have a suicide rate 2x the USA... see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/04/japan-suicide-rate-still-_n_831430.html

The US suicide rates are now over 110 per day, over 52% are gun related and the majority are white males over 45. The next largest demographic is a non-Caucasian young male, usually committing a drug related crime...

BOTH the UK and Australia have experienced INCREASING VIOLENT crime rates after their LEGAL guns were removed from the common citizen... see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html

Chicago (2012 - 500+homicides w/400+gun related) & Philadelphia have homicidee rates of around 20+ per 100k population. They also have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the USA...

Most US States now require back-ground checks (mental, criminal, & health), waiting periods for purchases, current gun training, and a personnel interview with the local Sheriff. The ones that do not - SHOULD. Plus the CCW gun permits have to be renewed, periodically.

I currently live in Thailand, where the possession of a unregistered gun is 5+years in JAIL. If it is a military style weapon, it is LIFE in JAIL. Obtaining LEGAL gun ownership is very restricted. Their gun violence rates are 5x the USA. BTY - A few years ago a sleeping child was killed by a falling bullet, after the national elections. The person was found and CONVICTED, Bangkok has multiple Video Cams with microphones, they pin-pointed the shooter's location (non-registered pistol)...

IMO - ENFORCE the existing gun laws and FORCE the Judges to use the Federal Gun Guidelines. Make owership of a gun just like any other property. Hold the OWNER responsible for any crimminal VIOLATIONs commited by or with or on their property...

Guns need to be regulated AT LEAST as much as cars. Even if the second amendment were to be kept completely intact, gun owners would claim that registering, insuring, and keeping track of all guns would somehow restrict their rights. This country has been insane for decades - but now it's becoming official as the saner ones among us see what the proliferation and easy access to guns has caused. There are many other towns besides Kennesaw where guns are NOT mandated and gun-violence is similarly low. Pointing out one example among thousands of small towns and cities is a weak argument - and for what? That guns be mandated everywhere? Yeah, that's sane.

If a gun owner fails to maintain control of their weapon, hold them accountable. Just like the current laws do for ownership of a vehicle or house/property...

If your children or wife has an accident with YOUR vehicle, YOU are held fiscally responsible. If they commit a crime using your vehicle, you will lose the vehicle...

If you or someone uses your house to throw a party, DRAM shop liability laws will confiscate your house. If your property is the location for crimminal activities, you could lose your house and/or property...

Guitarma,

They have done it for 30+years and maintained their low crime rates...

Name the US towns with LOWER states over this time period. That have accomplished it by Draconian Gun Laws...

There are many other towns besides Kennesaw where guns are NOT mandated and gun-violence is similarly low. Pointing out one example among thousands of small towns and cities is a weak argument - and for what?

Somebody obviously missed the point. The purpose of pointing out the low crime rate wasn't to show low crime is, it was to show the impact that guns have when the criminals don't know who is armed and who isn't.

Guitarma,

The point is, they are in a suburb of a major city, and they LOWERED the crime rate, not maintained a low crime rate. It is your opinion that this country is insane. But it isn't. We have those rights for a reason. And just because you and you blinded friends cant see it, the same reason exists today. The govt should never be the only armed people in the country. That has the high potential to lead to a dictatorship. And yes, it could even happen here. Maybe not today or tomorrow, but anything is possible. Will it happen? Chances are slim, but you can never say never. Freedom has to be protected. And, just because you don't agree with someone, does NOT give you the right to restrict their freedom with laws that forbidding something that is not innately immoral.

AC Robertson.

I think it Switzerland where it is mandated that every capable household is armed as part of a national defense effort. That is an interesting concept but if it came up on a national referendum for example, I would have to vote no.

The vast majority of time I do not care to think about guns,.. it is not that they are boring, or repulsive in their own right, its just not where my interests lie.

The second amendment is of course the legal framework for our gun culture. Many people interpret that as the right to hunt, or to protect themselves, or any number other purposes. I personally think it was put there to balance the 1st amendment, a carrot and stick approach for we the people to maintain our balance with the government. But shouldn't I also have the right to not bear arms?

And too my previous post above, would ammunition tracing with micro-serial numbers infringe on your/our 2nd amendment... responsibility... if I am correct about the founding fathers motive?

By the way, I don't buy the arguments that lotsa guns make a community safer and I originally come from such a community. All that hunting hardware just made me feel a little bit queasy.

Here's the reason why comparing drunk driving accidents to gun deaths is mostly irrelevant: cars are an integral part of everyday life in America. Almost everyone rides in, drives in, or is passed by vehicles multiple times every day. In contrast, most people do not handle firearms multiple times a day every day. Most people do not use a gun in their everyday life. Most Americans do not interact with armed individuals on a daily basis. So even if just a reflection of exposure to risk vs. benefit, it is far more risky to be around guns than to be around cars, and cars far more likely to provide a benefit to our everyday lives.

Yeah, if only this girl would have had her own gun, she could have protected herself against the bullets raining down out of the sky at her.

@!$%# me, I can't even make up the stupid bull@!$%# anymore. Satire is dead, people.

And grenades! The Founding Fathers who wrote the Second Amendment meant that we could have any form of mass killing devices that we want. I demand that the US Military release its huge stockpile of grenades and land mines to be sold at auction so we can control the government with equal power. I started to say that they should give them to us, but if they are sold at auction, my rich buddies can get most of them before the weaker races get their filthy hands on them. How many banks do you think will get robbed if most of the people standing around trying to get loans have a few hand grenades hanging off their belts? Huh? Answer me that, you pinko, Muslim weaklings.

obviously another gun incident has to be highlightedby MSM to bolster the anti gun and anti 2nd amendment wackos agenda, every year douche bags unload there guns in the air and kill inocent bystanders. drinking and driving , shooting and drinking bla bla bla , same bull you cant legislate stupidity out of existence

Satire isn't dead, it's just becoming too hard to tell what is serious and what is satire anymore.

Yeah - that way when the sale price doesn't come up right at the register, I can just shoot the clerk!

Family friend, a retired gentleman in his 70s, was sitting in his easy chair in his living room & ended up shot by a neighbor doing some target practice. True story. Happened in Vermont a few years ago. Even being inside isn't insurance against stray bullets. And this was in a nice, rural neighborhood.

An Amish girl (15) was shot in the head as she drove her horse-drawn buggy down a rural Ohio road. The shot originated 1.5+miles away, from a relatives gun, as he was cleaning it, Nov 2011... see

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57345561/sheriff-ohio-man-cleaning-gun-killed-amish-girl/

That's wild. I'll still live normally. I'd rather get shot at 30 than die at 75 living like a bubble boy all those years :P

Agreed. I must have lived a sheltered life: never been around anyone that started shooting guns in the air to celebrate anything. WTF is wrong with people?

Right sl, but just think, this same idiot who fired rounds into the air probably has a car and drivers license..... scarey thought. Even worse he's out there being stupid. To bad they can't outlaw that.

@savior loor - I had the exact same thought. People are stupid everywhere.

Perhaps alcohol was involved.

You don't know? It's a way for insecure men to show off, to intimidate women folk, and to puff up for other men.
This is the scourge of guns in the hands of intoxicated, narcissistic individuals.

Don't listen to the pessimists. I know of towns where celebratory gunfire has been effectively eliminated thru strict penalties, rewards, and gunshot sound localizer systems.

@pb - It amazes me that it's even a problem that actually occurs. Who does that? (rhetorical - shaking head)

OOPS! Accidentally gave you an up arrow don't let your head swell too much. pb you are the reason middle grounders and Independent voters will NEVER vote with the liberal parties. A-hole.

What's wrong with blanks?

What's wrong with blanks?

What's wrong with a @!$%#ing bottle of champagne? Why the desperate need to wave one's little tiny steel penis around?

Sounds like she must live in Glenn Beckistan.

I was just thinking about blanks. Would be OK for New Year's or 4th of July but I remember reading about an actor who picked up a gun loaded with blanks being used in a movie, putting it to his head and pulling the trigger. He was dead within a few hours.

I don't know what kind of gun laws we should have. I haven't studied the gun laws that have worked or not worked in other countries.

JimS12345

I was just thinking about blanks. Would be OK for New Year's or 4th of July but I remember reading about an actor who picked up a gun loaded with blanks being used in a movie, putting it to his head and pulling the trigger. He was dead within a few hours.

The gun wasn't loaded with blanks like it was suppose to. I read about that story. It was loaded with actual bullets. That's what happened Brandon Lee when he was doing The Crow. One of the guns aimed at his chest during a scene had a real bullet in it instead of a blank and it killed him. Blanks don't kill people which is why they are used in movies.

OK smart guy. You put a gun loaded with blanks to your head and pull the trigger. But maybe you should read the story I was talking about first.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon-Erik_Hexum

I was wrong about the timing though. He died 6 days later.

First off, I'm not a guy. Secondly, you don't need to be snarky. Thirdly, I do admit I was wrong after reading that. I had never heard of anyone dying from blanks until I read that incident.

November, 2008, Tucker Thayer was killed the same way as Hexum. Putting a blank gun to his head and pulling the trigger. A blank gun loaded with blanks being used in a high school play.

I do need to be snarky as I am a snarky person. Sorry about the gender mix up.

Thisbusymonster - Thank you for a good laugh! And common sense.

What's wrong with just celebrating without gunfire? Can't guns be reserved for hunting and self-defense?

What's wrong with just celebrating without gunfire? Can't guns be reserved for hunting and self-defense?

I agree completely. The stores around here always stock those popper things you toss on the sidewalk and the other things where you pull the string this time of year. My kids and I have always celebrated using that stuff.

They make noise and nobody gets hurt.

If you got a gun you probably want to shoot it once and a while,... what better time than the start of a new year, and in the air, and full of hootch. Others will make an impaired daring dash home, both hoping pedestrians have taken cover for the night.

Stray bullets resulting from firing a gun in the air can be lethal.

The saying "What goes up must come down" is an appropriate starting point. If you fire a gun into the air, the bullet will travel up to a mile high (depending on the angle of the shot and the power of the gun). Once it reaches its apogee, the bullet will fall. Air resistance limits its speed, but bullets are designed to be fairly aerodynamic, so the speed is still quite lethal if the bullet happens to hit someone. In rural areas, the chance of hitting someone is remote because the number of people is low. In crowded cities, however, the probability rises dramatically, and people get killed quite often by stray bullets. Most major cities have laws in place to try to keep people from shooting guns into the air in celebration.

From: http://science.howstuffworks.com/question281.htm

You can still die from a bullet being shot straight up. I'm not saying it's a no doubt deal, but it's still possible. The friction of air may be trying to slow the bullet down, but gravity does still play a factor. Regardless, no one should be shooting any guns up into the air, whether it's straight up or at an angle, because someone can still get killed if not injured.

If you fire straight up

The intellectual caliber of the kind of @!$%#wad who fires a gun for celebration is not such that you'd expect them to carefully measure the angle before they irresponsibly discharged their weapons.

On another note, all gunpowder should be chemically tagged, so that when another ass-@!$%#inghole does this and gets a neighbor killed, they can be charged with manslaughter and put in jail and have their god-damn guns taken away from them at last.

The practice of firing guns in the air goes back hundreds of years. The term was "feu de joie" and was a common way to make noise for a celebration. Key to this was, though, was that when the soldiers loaded their muskets, they only loaded the powder and the paper wadding and didn't put the lead bullet down the muzzle. In other words, they fired blanks - just like all the Rev War and Civil war reenactors do. Makes noise and quite safe.

The problem comes from cartridge guns and people not being bothered to buy blanks to shoot. While muzzle loaders simply skipped the load the ball step with their cartridges, modern guns need specially made blanks and not many stores sell them. You usually have to buy blanks from specialist stores. I have owned all types of firearms over the years and I would never dream of firing any live round without worrying where the end point was going to be.

If you fire straight up, nobody will get killed (physics idiots)

Why, don't they come back down?

If you fire straight up and don't move, the bullet should hit you in the head. Maybe a good thing.

i disagree. even if you fire straight up. there is still wind that becomes stronger the higher you go. the bullet will always travel some distance even if fired straight up and will always come down...unless you're in space

I guess. And since the earth is rotating, it will move a little before the bullet comes down. So maybe you will hit the guy next door.

I"m glad we got this worked out. I'm going to fire my gun straight up and not move. Ooooops, I don't have a gun.

The rotating Earth will not make a difference unless you are firing the bullet north or south (and even then it won't really make a difference given the distances we're talking about). If you fire the bullet straight up it will remain (relative to the point on the ground the bullet was fired from) in the same spot. This is because the bullet is already travelling laterally at the same speed as the rotation of the Earth at whatever latititude you're at. This is excluding the impact of external forces such as wind, of course. Does that sound right?

Good point from Beagles Wake, but the others are neglecting terminal velocity. Objects fall at a certain velocity, regardless. Humans Hit about 150 MPH (I may be a bit Off) before they impact the ground. Bullets, being more aerodynamic, fall faster, but not nearly as fast as the muzzle velocity that they left the gun. Fast enough to hurt, but very unlikely to kill. Like I said, watch the Mythbusters Episode for proof. Fireing at an angle is a totally different story, and many people die on a yearly basis. Use firecrackers and, at worst, blow off a finger or two. They do hurt like hell if they go off in your hand!

More people are killed by indirect fire than any other type of directed-firing, sense the Civil War...

The average bullets terminal velocity will be about 120+MPH. From your Myth Busters #50 show...

A .45 Cal bullet will have a terminal velocity of 132 m/s or 295+MPH due to tumbling. And it is a sub-sonic bullet that depends on its mass to kill... see http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_falling_bullets_kill_you

There have been many documented cases where falling rounds have even pierced the roof of buildings and still KILLED. Ask Four-year-old Marquel Peters during Jan2010, as he sat in a church pew and a bullet fired 2+miles away hit him... see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1240433/Boy-killed-bullet-fired-2-miles-away.html

Google - falling bullets kill... 9,260,000 hits

So, basically, you are apologizing for the NRA support for idiots getting guns? Brilliant!

The Obama Hater Network commenting without having the facts as usual, the article about the car accidents, shootings, and stabbings was on the front page yesterday. This article is about a rare occurrence involving a gun, if someone dropped a knife from a plane and it landed on someone's head I'm sure it would be in an article too.

Just curious AKAZIP, is it your stance that all articles relating to guns and a negative event should be censored?

Oh AKAZIP, I just ran into an article on the front page about how a naked, drugged-up intruder that was choking the homeowner's dog was shot. This must be impossible, the "Obummer Network" would never allow an article to talk about a gun protecting someone, they are hypocrites right? Oh wait guns can't kill, only people kill. Nevermind, I take it back, because guns can't protect people either, only people can protect people.

Next New Year's, I'm gonna drop a knife from a plane. Awesome!

Lol Mifo. It wont have the same effect, it is the "OMG LOUD NOISES?!!?!!" rush that the feeble of mind gain from firing a gun in celebration.

There were about 40 other people died that day from gun fire. This one is just one of the most senseless incident. Cars serve a purpose while the guns other serve to kill people and in this case only served to kill a 10 year old girl. I hope they catch that coward and sent him or her away for a long time. All the other idiots who fired guns that day and did not killed this girl should also be arrested for illegally discharging a firearm.

Jesus H. Christ! If you don't know the difference between a car and a gun, you DEFINITELY should not have any weapons in your possession. It's the difference between f*#king acceptable risk for something that contributes to society more than it destroys (cars), and something that contributes nothing to society but is instead nothing but a liability (guns).

If you can't understand such a simple concept, you won't understand the principles behind the effective use of a gun and you shouldn't be allowed to have one.

Well said Humble Human.

Just console yourself that the gun owner probably passed the background check before getting it.

AKAZIP - Almost every household owns a car you moron. Not everyone owns a gun. So.....do the math. Or are you too stupid to do that? Yes? Well then, I hope you do not own a gun.

From www.childrensdefense.org
Children and Teens Killed by Firearms: A Portrait
The latest data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that 3,042
children and teens died from gunfire in the United States in 2007—one every three hours,
eight every day, 58 every week.
2,161 were homicide victims
683 committed suicide
198 died in accidental or undetermined circumstances
2,665 were boys
377 were girls
397 were under age 15
154 were under age 10
85 were under age 5
1,499 were Black
1,460 were White
611 were Hispanic*
43 were Asian or Pacific Islander
40 were American Indian or Alaska Native
Almost six times as many children and teens—17,523—suffered non-fatal gun injuries, which also
can have serious physical and emotional consequences.
There are more than 280 million privately owned firearms in the United States, which is the
equivalent of nine firearms for every 10 men, women and children in this country.
* Persons of Hispanic/Latino origin can be of any race; these 678 deaths are included in the four race categories

Ban handguns.

That's correct. People who fire guns into the air for no good reason are idiots. What was your point?

Hey, doof, I am a gun owner, and I am responsible 100% of the time. So what's your point other than to highlight your ignorance? Maybe it's time to force people to be more responsible with their keyboards.

Hey, doof, I am a gun owner, and I am responsible 100% of the time.

Then you don't have anything to worry about. So what's your beef?

Sadly you are the one who is being STUPID, as I have said before the NRA does not condone shooting into the air, the NRA not only stands for gun "rights" but also heavily encourages and offers gun SAFTEY education. Nano-engraving only identifies the amunition maker and any kind of "registry database" would become so large as to make it impossible to manage, this is why it never went into action. Every gun leaves it's "fingerprint" on a bullet when fired so nano-engraving would be redundant. Dont blame the NRA or gun owners in general for the actions of a few idiots, there are idiots in all walks of life as you clearly show yourself to be one of them.

Right on Rich-2577171. It's hard to control "stupid". Unfortunately there's a lot of "stupid" out there.

the NRA not only stands for gun "rights" but also heavily encourages and offers gun SAFTEY education.

Boy, have you been hoodwinked. The policies of the NRA since the 1970's has been to sell more guns, period. Take a look at how much money they get from that industry.

The 'education' part of their propaganda effort is only to make it look like they are responsible members of society. There have been so many distortions of reality and obfuscation attempts by the extremist element of the NRA that the only conclusion is that it is a treasonous, terrorist support organization...If you are truly a responsible gun owner and a member of the NRA, you should turn in your card ASAP.

I don't quite understand, rich and maddog. You guys admit there are a lot of idiots out there, ones who have no business owning a gun... but you think we should defend their rights to own them anyway? It's that kind of reasoning that clearly shows you do not have the cognitive acuity to wield a weapon.

We can test for mental illness. We can run a check to see if someone has a criminal record. We have no test or background check for idiocy. There is the problem. How do we keep weapons out of irresponsible hands without taking away rights from those who are responsible and sane?

Rich - encourages gun safety? It should be mandatory!AND you should clearly pass the test. Along with an IQ test. And a sanity test. (if they have those) You have a right to own a gun? That little girl had a right to celebrate SAFELY with her family! That family had a right to start 2013 with their daughter!

Idiocy is combated by one thing: education. We should have to take training classes, take exams, and prove our abilities before owning a weapon. After all, that's what we do with cars.

Humble human,

And even with that training and education before owning a car we see around 100 deaths per day nationwide from people being careless, drunk, paying more attention to their cell-phone than to traffic, driving to fast for conditions, or otherwise bone-headed acts that make us question their ability to be behind the wheel.

So, because people are stupid in a car, it justifies not fixing the gun problem?

You can't fix stupid and reckless just by adding more laws to the books. There are no easy answers.

I hope that they find the person that caused her death and charge him with murder.

That would be a start.

Uh, Sam, I don't know how to state this delicately, you do know that cars are used every day by more people than guns are, right? How can you even try to equate cars and guns? I use a car to go shopping, I don't use a gun to go shopping. Well, maybe some do, but they're not supposed to, like using cellphones when driving. See what a false equation that was?

Every year, people all over the world get killed by stray celebratory gunfire. Unfortunately, the likelihood that members of the NRA leadership is among them is too low.

OK, I will try to come down to your level. Here is the idea: If the NRA demands that people be able to go out in crowded places with guns and some of those idiots shoot randomly in the air, my vote would be for one of the bullets to come down squarely on their heads. Unfortunately, the average child is more vulnerable to this NRA stupidity. Get it?

Rich - he didn't say member. He said NRA leadership.

I used to live in Phoenix some years ago and I remember well what Midnight New Years sounded like. I'm glad they passed a law prohibiting that kind of stuff, as Newton once said "What goes up must come down" and bullets are no exception. I had a bullet or two land on my roof so I know what it's like.

Sounds good, Rich, why don't you run for the NRA presidency? A rational approach to representation of responsible gun ownership would be much better than the current NRA goal of selling more guns for the gun and ammo industry.

I already am an NRA member, and our leadership is just fine. We are a group of people who already own guns and want to see them used in a safe manner, we don't sell guns or ammunition. As I've told you in an earlier post, Feel free to post again when you grow up.

You just think that is what the NRA is. If so, why do they seek and receive millions of dollars every year from the gun and ammo industry to bribe government officials? You seem to have a fairly immature idea about modern marketing strategies.

our leadership is just fine. You mean the one who admitted publicly that he is crazy?!? I would advise you to petition him to resign and get someone in the office that is not a self described crazy man.

Feel free to post again when you grow up. LMAO...

Rich, there is just no reasoning with some people. Texc is one of them.

I have had some difficulty making sense of the comments of a miscreant for decades. LMAO...

If you want to discuss this thing, you need to put down the flag, the bible, and an 18th Century understanding of reality and talk like an adult.

Oh, and you have to renounce the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus too.

I'm with you tex2c - I don't like the NRA. Their solution to everything is more guns. They now have classes for teachers learning how to use guns. At least they aren't promoting guns for the kids yet. Recess could be a lot more interesting if all the kids were packing heat.

The only gun that can be fired into the air is a shotgun when loaded with the correct shells for bird hunting.

Just ask the guy shot by Dick Chaney how good a idea that is!!!

No one should be firing any gun (shotguns included) into the air to celebrate. It is completely idiotic to do so. There are too many irresponsible idiots who have access to guns & they give the responsible gun owners a bad name/image.

GrampaSImpson: What the heck are you smoking? You sure don't know the NRA.

. . . Idiot!

Rick, rick, rick, you have shown us that you do not have a clue about what the NRA is or stands for. You are simply one of the fools who sends them money every year and still thinks they are fighting for your best interests...

our leadership is just fine.

Feel free to post again when you grow up.

...His name is Rich...maybe you read NRA information as well as you read his name ;D

I didn't expect much from tex2c and he didn't dissapoint me, thank you lyrica.

Damn, here I thought he was a right wing gun fanatic with KKK in his name. Get it? You gun fanatics are soooo literal...LOL

If my eyebrow could raise any higher it'd be on the back of my neck. Literal? Silly, own up to your mistake, it'll make ya look better.

You don't drink and drive, and you don't drink and shoot. Alcohol does not mix with cars or guns.

And people who would give money to a terrorist organization and guns don't mix either. Surely, you don't send the NRA money every year?!?! LOL

Your ignorance shows no bounds. You speak (write) without engaging brain. The NRA is not a "terrorist" organization, never has been, never will be. I don't understand your rabid hatred of the NRA, did they drop you on your head when you were a (are) child?

Rich, I don't own a gun. And honestly, I don't know anything about them. And, if someday, I want to buy a guy, I would like to be able to. That being said, I would expect to, before purchasing, take a class, learn how to handle a gun, learn about gun safety, make sure that, faced with a situation, I could handle it calmly, rationally, etc., have an extensive background check, and before being handed the gun, the person over the counter, knowing without a doubt, that I would not turn it on a group of children in school, fire into a crowd of people just wanting to watch a movie, or just for the heck of it, fire it into the air without harming one hair on anyone's head, give me my gun. How can we go about doing that? Obviously, and I do understand this, criminals don't follow the law. But stupid, irresponsible people can still legally own one.

OKay, to my above comment, I am not going to buy a guy. No, I meant a gun! Haha!

WTF?!

I don't know. What is it about racist scumbags who are so clueless they don't even try to mask their blatant ignorance and racism but actually parade it??? Wait, let me guess, you're an NRA goober, eh fella???

And BTW dimwit, I know of numerous white boys who are all around imbeciles and that includes the way they handle firearms.

The color of your skin has nothing to do with the lack of gray matter between the ears. College degrees are much the same these days, just because you have Dr. or PHD, etc. after your name is no guarantee you are actually intelligent.

Dave, I live in the mountains and I can guarantee our 'good ol' rednecks' here are just as guilty about shooting guns in the air as the rest of the world. As Rich said, having a degree doesn't mean you are actually intelligent, common sense isn't a requirement for education...sadly.

So you're saying that anyone who points out that we have a rampant epidemic of guns and gun violence in this country is an "enemy of the nation"??? Since when were you the last word on patriotism?

No only the ones that think any infringement on the second amendment is not an act of war against the United States.

there was outrage. as usual your eyes and ears have been closed.

There is always outrage when a child dies. I remember people calling for some action being done when news broke a child was killed because of a stray bullet or being shot on purpose. The problem is, not much gets done because people can't agree on some sort of prevention mainly due to worries of someone's rights being removed or going against what others feel is necessary. The issue eventually gets put on the backburner until it happens again. It's a sick cycle because neither side can come to some sort of agreement to keep something like this happening.

OH?? Where were the calls for more gun control? Where were the calls for getting guns off the street? Where were the articles on NBCNEWS? I didn't see anything about these shootings on MSNBC,CBS,NBC or CNN. Where were Sharpton and Jackson when these little BLACK girls were killed? Why weren't they in the 'Hood protesting? They were all over the Martin shooting. Why is that? Where was Fienstein and the other Democrats in Congress calling for a gun ban?

slodon, probably because it occurred in Chicago. Illinois and Chicago already have the most restrictive gun laws in America. What more could any politician do?

What more could any politician do about the shooting in Connecticut? After all Connecticut has some pretty strict gun laws. Yet they were out in force after that shooting. Could it be the number of children shoot? Could that be it? The larger the number the larger the outrage?